[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-242193-105":53,"doc-detail-242193-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","wp-agile-contracting-federal-agile-contracting-overview","wp-agile-contracting - Federal Agile Contracting Overview","","Federal IT contracting often fails to deliver proportional value because procurement guidance and workforce practices change more slowly than technology. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) still anchors acquisition, even though agencies struggle to adopt Agile. Guidance from the Federal Acquisition Institute supports Agile contracting, emphasizing customer collaboration. The document contrasts waterfall predictability with Agile adaptability, showing how fixed iterations, continuous planning, and embedded quality enable better outcomes under government contracting constraints.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/wp-agile-contracting-federal-agile-contracting-overview/242193/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/wp-agile-contracting-federal-agile-contracting-overview/242193.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Lucas Martin","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-08","2026-09-12",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"Why is Agile contracting challenging in federal procurement?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"Federal procurement guidance and contracting practices often lag behind technology changes. Agencies also rely heavily on FAR-based approaches that may not align with iterative delivery.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"How does Agile procurement differ from traditional waterfall procurement?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"Waterfall predetermines requirements, deliverables, and dates early, often forcing delivery of a potentially subpar product to meet deadlines. Agile is adaptive, uses fixed-duration iterations, supports continuous planning, and builds quality through frequent customer involvement.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Can Agile work with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"Yes. An FFP contract can be structured to support Agile by setting a high-level scope, fixing time, and aligning spend with team count and periods of performance, while enabling frequent stakeholder demonstrations.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},242193,1790456105,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":141,"read_time":79},8796095360427,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","Federal contracts for agile delivery  \nThe government spends billions of dollars on federal IT contracts, but may not receive billions of dollars of value in return. The way the government uses and procures technology has changed, but the workforce, policies, procedures and vendor management principles have not.  \nThe Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) has not kept up with changes in technology and procurement methods, but the government still leans on the FAR for acquisition guidance. Agencies are less likely to draw on new developments in contracting, such as Agile.  \nNevertheless, there has been some progress. The Federal Acquisition Institute established guidance for Agile contracting in 2015, and has been actively working on policies and procedures to assist government agencies with this challenge. FAI offers free training for federal employees and have publicly available documents and videos on their website. However, there is still a long way to go.  \nCustomer collaboration over contract negotiation isone of the four values in the Agile Manifesto. In the government, however, contracts are unavoidable.  \nWith the traditional waterfall approach that many federal contracts still follow, agencies pre-determine requirements, deliverables and delivery dates in the request for proposal (RFP) development phase, which become part of the final contract. This creates an additional challenge to yet another value of the Agile Manifesto: a preference for responding to change over following a plan.  \nAgile vs. Waterfall  \nWaterfall is predictive, with agencies investing a significant amount of time in producing a plan, thereby making the plan the most valuable asset. The agency must define a fixed scope of work and create a comprehensive requirements document near the beginning of the process, when little is really known about the work. The RFP developers can only estimate cost and time, as there is insufficient information to determine what resources and timelines are required to do the work. As a result, quality suffers; work often takes longer to complete than anticipated, but preestablished deadlines force the contractor team to deliver a potentially subpar product in order to meet the due dates.  \nAgile, on the other hand, is adaptive. It’s value-driven, not plan-driven. In Agile, the process of continuous planning is more important than any one plan. As the work progresses, a better, more informed plan replaces the previous plan, usually several times before the work is complete. There is no longer a big up-front requirements document because Agile welcomes change, even late in development. Cost and time are fixed because Agile operates in fixed duration iterations with a longstanding team. Quality is built in because the customer is working hand in hand with the team, approving each piece as it is developed.  \nFixed  \nScope (Requirements)  \nAgile   \nVs.  \nVariable Scope (Features)  \n Waterfall   \nGovernment Procurement  \nProcurement offices in federal agencies encourage Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts. This may seem like it is not conducive to Agile, but in fact, an FFP contract can be very Agile. It is just important to structure it right. Seta high-level scope through a statement of objectives; then, fix the time and spend based on number of teams and length of the periods of performance.  \nAgile calls for frequent demonstrations that share progress and challenges with the stakeholders.  \nHands-on involvement is critical to monitor progress and avoid last-minute surprises.  \nThe federal government has long focused on minimizing risk — at times, at the expense of delivery. This focus impedes Agile implementation. The long list of “Supplier shall …” statements that has pervaded government contracting works best for well-defined procurements. For innovative products such as software, the process gives only the illusion of control.  \nAgile Project  \nIteration 1  \nIteration 1  \nBPA/IDIQ  \nTask Order 1  \nTask Order 2  \nIn tradit","cbCairTRLVomEa7Z","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCairTRLVomEa7Z","pdf",544132,10,"English","# Federal Agile Delivery Context\n## FAR and Agile Guidance\n# Agile Manifesto Values in Government Contracts\n## Customer Collaboration vs Negotiation\n# Agile vs Waterfall Procurement Approaches\n## Predictive Planning vs Adaptive Iterations\n# Structuring Firm Fixed Price (FFP) for Agile\n## Fixed Time/Spend and Demonstrations\n## Risk Minimization and Contract Language\n# Agile Project Structure and Ordering\n## Iterations, BPA/IDIQ, and Task Orders\n# Contract Administration and Hybrid Contract Models\n## Joint Effort and Not-to-Exceed Thresholds\n# Leveraging BPAs and IDIQs for Agile Contracting\n## Reusable Task Order Templates","[{\"question\":\"Why is Agile contracting challenging in federal procurement?\",\"answer\":\"Federal procurement guidance and contracting practices often lag behind technology changes. Agencies also rely heavily on FAR-based approaches that may not align with iterative delivery.\"},{\"question\":\"How does Agile procurement differ from traditional waterfall procurement?\",\"answer\":\"Waterfall predetermines requirements, deliverables, and dates early, often forcing delivery of a potentially subpar product to meet deadlines. Agile is adaptive, uses fixed-duration iterations, supports continuous planning, and builds quality through frequent customer involvement.\"},{\"question\":\"Can Agile work with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts?\",\"answer\":\"Yes. An FFP contract can be structured to support Agile by setting a high-level scope, fixing time, and aligning spend with team count and periods of performance, while enabling frequent stakeholder demonstrations.\"}]","wp-agile-contracting - Federal Agile Contracting Overview | PDF",1789187684]